LSQ Guidelines

It’s important to understand and accept
that certain artists reserve specific legal artistic rights that protect
their creative endeavors, whether finished or as blank bodies (either
blank Resins or blank Customs). Such rights are usually based on the
intellectual property laws of Copyright Law and the Visual Artists Rights
Act (or “VARA”). These reserved rights need to be researched and taken
into account on a per artist basis before making any purchase, for any
reason. You certainly do not want to get “stuck” with a model you’re
inevitably unhappy with, but unable to change. So only work on models or
patronage artists that are aligned to your own sensibilities and goals in
order to have a happier experience.

Remember: Choose
LSQ pieces based on artistic parameters you can

accommodate.

A Healthier Philosophy:

It must be said that the state of our
judging practices is chaos. Unfortunately, at this time, there is little
consensus on judging standards or expectations, meaning that each judge
uses a random and individual set of requirements with little, or no,
accountability to any governing body. Until this situation changes, live
showing can be unpredictable, even with an
LSQ model. Therefore, I recommend only purchasing models you
love 100%, rather than desperately trying to find models that will win
because, otherwise, you may find your experience to be continually
frustrating and stressful. Honestly, even if your beloved model never
wins, you’ll still enjoy it, which is the whole point, isn’t it?

Remember:
LSQ is no guarantee of live show success, so be sure you

love your models for what they are,
not what they’ll do for you in the ring.

The Optionals

The common denominator of The Optionals is
individual taste, perspectives and goals and therefore, necessitates more
latitude than The Essentials. Topics presented are, as follows:

Conformation and Type

Artistic Style vs. Caricature

Hairing

Conformation and Type:

I recommend individual research of this
subject, with an objective and skeptical mind. And while it has been
argued that a successful
LSQ model must be a good representation of its intended breed
or type, that is an ambiguous expectation at best and, therefore, should
be considered optional. Why? Well, for six primary reasons, as follows:

Conformation and type are not
necessarily tenants of realism since plenty of living horses have poor
conformation or type, yet are still characterized by equine anatomy.
They may be flawed, but are still “realistic”. And when we judge model
horses, we are judging realism made by the work of human hands, and not
nature. And so, predictably, there are plenty of models with ideal
conformation and type that are flawed anatomically (i.e. not realistic).
And remember,

conformation and type are the lengths,
angles and characteristics

instituted by humans that supposedly
qualify an animal as “superior” or “inferior” for human use or
enjoyment, whereas anatomy qualifies the animal as part of the genus
Equus for survival, which vastly predates domestication by humans.
This doesn’t mean the model can be off-type or pathological, but that
conformation and type must be regarded in balance with equine evolution,
physiology and the history of domestication by humans.

Yes, there is a basis of functional
conformation that protects against

pathologies that cause pain and injury
to the animal. But most conformation and type dogma is theory at best
and marketing gimmickry and propaganda at worst. Both are also
notoriously prone to frivolous fashion, bias, misinformation and
exaggeration, much to the detriment of the living animal. The truth is
that plenty of “poorly conformed” or “ugly” horses perform beautifully
and stay sound whereas plenty of “ideal” specimens perform poorly or are
chronically lame. And there’s nothing “ugly” or “inferior” about a
happy, useful horse.

By which standard of conformation and
type are we supposed to evaluate a model? Are we stuck with only those
current representatives deemed “ideal” right now or may we also include
those phenotypes found throughout the
breed’s history? Of note, this speaks directly to the underlying contradiction in model horse
showing that plagues it, specifically the clash between “historical”
judging and “now” judging. Historical judging (which I favor)
acknowledges all possible representatives within a gene pool, throughout
history, whether or not they’re favored by modern times or standards. In
short, historical judging evaluates the gene pool only, and all the
possibilities that can occur in it. For example, historical desert
Arabians can compete equally against modern show ring Arabians; old
foundation Quarter Horses can compete

equally against modern halter Quarter
Horses. Even chestnut Friesians can compete equally against black
Friesians (given the shower provides documentation) since it’s
genetically possible to produce a chestnut Friesian even though the
registry disfavors the color in the breed. In contrast, “now” judging
(which I disfavor) only acknowledges current, modern representatives of
any given gene pool, strictly according to current registry dogma. This
type of judging is most like showing a real horse today, only
recognizing current forms and presentation of the breed and shutting out
much of what was, and is still, possible. For example, in its extreme
form, such judges favor those models in the textbook modern halter pose,
with grooming, coloration and phenotypes currently fashionable and fault
all others, regardless of
LSQ. So it’s important to understand from which perspective
you wish to focus your showstring, and to carefully choose which judges
you show under, otherwise your perfectly
LSQ model may not show well
through no fault of its

own.

Can it be said that there is only one
conformational and type standard for each breed? Hardly. In fact, most
breeds can be typified as having several acceptable variations,
historical and present, due to bloodlines, uses or tradition.

Conformation and type are too open to
interpretation or differing taste. Indeed, everyone seems to have a
different idea about what is “ideal” type or structure for any given
discipline, bloodline or breed,

so, which is correct?

The concept of “breed” or “pure
bloodline”, as we know it today, is a rather contemporary western notion
adamantly perpetuated by registries and the industries they support, and
can rely heavily on mythologies, misinformation and rhetoric.
Originally, horses were bred for a specific use, with rather open gene
pools, shaping their bodies for narrowly focused disciplines. In fact,
the original application of “type” was to discern between a riding
horse, a racehorse, a carriage horse, a warhorse, a workhorse, etc.
Also, “type” could apply to a region or culture a kind of horse could be
found. In other words, horses were classified and bred according to
their job or regional isolation, not according to their bloodlines (with
some historic exceptions) or rigid points of breediness. However,

when the idea of “purebred” became
ingrained in a status-hungry modern culture, gene pools
were sealed with “closed” registry books, which meant that these closed populations now had to
operate outside of their original uses while also exalting specific and
rigid points of type to set them apart from all the other newly
established “purebreds” to compete in the horse market, which still has
unfortunate consequences today. We all know what happens when people try
to “one up” each other for status, money and power. Indeed, the conceit
can be so extreme that you can hear people refer to non-purebreds as
mutts, mongrels or other derogatory terms. And also consider that much
of modern conformation and type dogma is based on westernized ideals of
“perfection” and so is actually a form of snobbery towards non-western
cultures, breeds, types or colors. Indeed, the distain for feral, wild
or non-western phenotypes or colors is rampant and overt, despite the
inherent natural hardiness and usefulness of such animals, typically
more so than the “ideal” westernized ones!

Remember: A good rule of thumb is to
know the basics of functional

conformation for an
LSQ piece, and regard everything else with a hefty grain of salt.

Artistic Style vs. Caricature:

This is another source of contradiction in
model horse showing, and one that may never find resolution (but should
it?). And because it relies entirely on your own tastes, it’s an optional
quality to consider. Truly, we are indeed an activity based on
creativity, which naturally involves a level of individual expression and
unique vision. In fact, many participants find great delight in the
variety of interpretations of the realistic equine form, and one

could say it’s one of our strengths as a
community. But it also speaks to the

paradox between a desire for “clinical”
realism and an appreciation for

individual artistic style, even to the
extreme of an enduring proclivity for

caricature. But let’s be honest, there’s
no getting around a level of artistic

style in any type of creative product, no
matter how technically realistic it may be. We are humans and not DNA.
However, it can be said that some artists are more successful at finding a
balance between style and technical realism and it’s these artists that
tend to dominate the show ring. Nevertheless, those pieces that are heavily
stylized can find success too, so there is some leeway in what our
activity demands. So, boiled down, it’s important to understand what your
tastes are, and what to expect when you purchase models aligned to them.

Remember: An
LSQ piece typically has a reasonable balance between artistic style
and clinical realism, rather than relying on artistic style alone.

Hairing:

Hairing was commonplace in the past, but
is now quite rare, making it more of an option than a necessity.
Nevertheless, a quality hair job still has the same high standards now as
it did in the past. For starters, the hair must be of high quality
material, such as ramie or viscose, and be of realistic tones, texture and
appearance. It must also be applied with skill to best mimic the look and
lay of real hair and be trimmed and groomed to duplicate the look of real
manes, tails or feathers. It must also be styled to be consistent to the
representative specifics or the movement depicted by the model. Issues
that would compromise a
LSQ hair job would be, as follows:

An excess of glue along the crest or
dock

Glue that has yellowed or discolored

Glue infused throughout the hair

If rooted, if the slot along the crest
is too wide

If the hair is dirty, matted or
discolored

Puffy, uncombed and knotted hair

Hair the wrong tone for the coat color

Hair improperly trimmed, groomed or
styled

If the hair at the dock forms a sloppy
border or is improperly trimmed straight across, rather than forming a
crescent, protruding towards the tailbone

If the hairing is too sparse as to show
bald patches

If the hairing is too profuse and
excessive

If the end of the tailbone unnaturally
protrudes through the hair

If styling mousse or gel can be seen on
the body surface of the model

Remember:
LSQ hairing must be precise, neat and realistically done with
quality materials.

Closing Thoughts

Despite confusion and differing opinions,
LSQ is certainly a tangible and discernable quality. But it
takes time and experience to create or identify
LSQ, so study, practice, ask questions and observe to hone your
eye. And it’s always a good idea to attend many shows and study the work
of others up close, and compare them against each other and to your own
sensibilities. Undeniably, it’s very important to study truly great work
in person to build a mental library of goals and insights. And if in
doubt, always seek advice from knowledgeable, experienced people. Also,
try to purchase models you’re able to inspect in person first or are able
to return for a full refund. Absolutely, the ability to objectively
identify
LSQ is the single most important skill to learn, as an artist,
judge and collector, and the most potent ingredient for enjoying model horse
showing.